An Explosive Debate Over Natural Gas

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has expressed a preference for a liquefied natural gas terminal offshore from Oxnard over other sites, including Long Beach, igniting a furor along the Southern California coast as some local officials and residents praise the safety of an offshore site while others decry his comments as premature and irresponsible.

The governor expressed his “personal preference” for a proposed BHP Billiton terminal 14 miles offshore from Oxnard. An onshore site in the Port of Long Beach and two other offshore sites along the California coast are also being considered for importing highly chilled natural gas from overseas.

The governor said more study was needed before a final decision was made.

Still, his comments Thursday highlighted an escalating debate in the state as to whether LNG terminals pose too many safety and security concerns to be located onshore in populated areas.

Project opponents in Ventura County fear the governor’s remarks could give the Oxnard project the edge.

“I’ve taken the opinion from the beginning that, unless proven otherwise, I am strongly opposed to this project. And nothing the governor said has changed that,” Oxnard Mayor Tom Holden said Friday.

In nearby Malibu, where many residents dislike the prospect of any offshore energy facility, Mayor Andy Stern also expressed concern about the governor’s comments.

“I’m very disappointed he would make up his mind before the process is completed,” Stern said. “I’d like the governor to retract his statement and say he has an open mind until all the facts are in.”

Of four possible locations, the two getting the most serious attention are the Oxnard proposal from Australia-based BHP and the Long Beach plan by a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Corp.

Some critics of the proposed Long Beach terminal two miles from the city’s downtown say they are heartened by the governor’s preference for an offshore site.

“Having an area offshore is significantly different than putting thousands or hundreds of thousands of people at risk,” said Long Beach Councilman Frank Colonna, who opposes the Mitsubishi terminal. “Not that we’re opposed to the value of LNG, but let’s keep it away from the people.”

In Sacramento a bill sponsored by state Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) would develop a system for weighing the merits and drawbacks of each terminal proposal.

It has passed the Senate and goes to an Assembly committee Monday.

“These are choices with enormous economic, environmental and security consequences for California,” Simitian said Friday. He said he viewed Schwarzenegger’s comments as “an off-the-cuff response” but added, “We’d be better served if we waited until we had all the facts in front of us.”

The gas is chilled to 260 degrees below zero so it liquefies, allowing it to be shipped by tanker from gas fields primarily in Asia, Australia and Africa.

Only five liquefied natural gas terminals are operating nationwide today -- none on the West Coast -- but rising fuel prices are prompting keen interest in importing the gas. More than 40 new terminals have been proposed across the country, sparking opposition in a number of cities, particularly in the Northeast and the West.

Safety concerns have escalated with the release of studies of how the terminals might be affected by fires and terrorist attacks. A December 2004 report from Sandia National Laboratories determined that a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker could inflict second-degree burns within 30 seconds on people as far as a mile away.

The siting of liquefied natural gas facilities has generated considerable debate on Capitol Hill this month as the Senate reviews an energy bill that would give final say to the federal government, angering state and local officials.

Schwarzenegger told reporters in Alhambra on Thursday that the governor and the people of California should retain authority over siting the terminals, and he cited the importance of public safety concerns.

“I think that the one, for instance [in] Oxnard, where you build it out approximately 11, 12 miles off the shore, could be probably the most safe one for California,” Schwarzenegger told reporters, according to a printed transcript.

Asked if preliminary studies suggested that the Long Beach site could be dangerous, the governor said: “No. It’s just my personal preference is Oxnard. But like I said, after we have studied all this and see the pros and cons, I think we will be able to make a better decision.”

A Schwarzenegger spokesman added Friday: “We need to wait for the regulatory process to finish before making any final decisions.”

As governor, Schwarzenegger has certain powers to approve or veto the BHP proposal under federal laws overseeing deep-water ports but has no such authority over onshore terminals.

A draft environmental report for the BHP proposal was made public last fall and found the plan was generally safe although some further research is being done. A report for Long Beach is currently being prepared.

A Mitsubishi spokesman said his firm was unfazed by the governor’s remarks. “I think what he’s saying clearly is that he wants a safe site, and he wants to wait until all the facts are in. We agree with both points,” said Mitsubishi spokesman Jeffrey Adler.

Environmental groups expressed alarm at the governor’s preference for the Oxnard proposal.

“I think he thinks that as long as you put facilities offshore, all the problems go away. There are serious problems with this facility,” said Susan Jordan, executive director of the California Coastal Protection Network.

Critics of an proposed facility in Long Beach said they are pleased that the governor considers an offshore spot like Oxnard’s safer than one in a highly populated area.

Still, Long Beach community activist Bry Myown said she is worried that people will think the governor’s remarks mean the Long Beach plan is off the table, when in fact much review remains ahead.

“People have been calling me all day, saying, ‘Doesn’t this mean that Long Beach is dead now?’ ” Myown said. “Whatever he says and doesn’t say isn’t going to stop the permitting process.”

Staff writer Peter Nicholas in Sacramento contributed to this report.